Antennas, Radios and other Equipment

[WSKM816]

 

Hello everyone!

New here to GMRS and have been wanting to get a new antenna for my house and my truck. Ive seen so many options but I really am unsure what would be best. Im wanting to send the house antenna up high. Maybe 15-20 feet or further but would like to know what people have had the best luck using. Im pretty set on a few types for my truck, a 3dbl and 6dbl but I am still open to getting anything recommended that you have had work well for you. 

I live in the low desert so its really wide open but I like to travel so mountain and forests are a factor. Again, I am pretty new but have basic experience from over the years just messing around. 

Thanks for reading WSKM816

            73!!!

[WRTC928]

A lot of people recommended the Comet 712EFC to me as a base antenna and it has worked really well. I currently don't use any GMRS-specific mobile antennas, but I tried several in the past. The Nagoya HD-G is junk. I ran a Nagoya 702-G mag mount for a while and it was satisfactory. Range was acceptable -- not great -- but it had a very good signal both ways. I have a Diamond SG7900 on the rear driver-side bed rail of my truck and it outperforms any GMRS antenna I've tried. Conventional wisdom holds that an antenna tuned specifically for the band you want to operate on will give the best results, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. The Comet 2x4SR, for example has given me very good performance on GMRS. It does need a good ground plane, though.

[CoffeeTime]

The Midland MXTA26 is very popular here for GMRS off-road use.  Ready to go without trimming. 

I run one on my 4x4 farm truck, and it takes a beating in the woods. Nevertheless, that antenna continues to get compliments on the quality signal/sound. 

Note: I don't even have it roof-mounted for the best possible ground plane.  Mine is on an SS  homemade bracket on the side of the rear window protector/headache rack.  

It just works.

Best Regards!

[WRYZ926]

The Midland MXTA26 is one of the most popular GMRS only mobile antennas. And the Comet CA-712EFC is very popular when it comes to GMRS only base antennas. The CA-712EFC is tall at 10 ft long. So if height is a concern then the Comet CA-GMRS is another good choice for a base antenna. The CA-GMRS is 42 inches long.

Another choice for a short mobile antenna is the Tram 1174. Though it will have to be cut/tuned for GMRS. You will want to use an antenna analyzer for best results in tuning it. 

Others will recommend different brands of antennas that work well for GMRS. The Midland MXTA26 and Comet CA-712EFC are by far the most popular though.

The Comet 2x4SR is hard to beat when it comes to multi band mobile antennas. Though it is a bit tall for those with height restrictions as it is 38 inches long.

I run a Tram 1174 on my Ford Escape as I park it in the garage. I run the Comet 2x4SR on my F150 since height is not an issue.

[Northcutt114]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTime said:

The Midland MXTA26 is very popular here for GMRS off-road use.  Ready to go without trimming. 

I'll second this. I have a Midland stubby on my Jeep and it works wonders. Mounted on a lip mount on the back of the hood, right in the middle. Easily walks to a repeater some 40 miles away.

As to a home antenna, I like the Ed Fong GMRS tuned J-Pole. Less than $70 all in after a trip to Lowe's for the PVC and it does a fine job. Mounted to my back deck only about 20' off the ground.

 

[WSKM816]

On 12/3/2025 at 7:20 AM, WRTC928 said:

A lot of people recommended the Comet 712EFC to me as a base antenna and it has worked really well. I currently don't use any GMRS-specific mobile antennas, but I tried several in the past. The Nagoya HD-G is junk. I ran a Nagoya 702-G mag mount for a while and it was satisfactory. Range was acceptable -- not great -- but it had a very good signal both ways. I have a Diamond SG7900 on the rear driver-side bed rail of my truck and it outperforms any GMRS antenna I've tried. Conventional wisdom holds that an antenna tuned specifically for the band you want to operate on will give the best results, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. The Comet 2x4SR, for example has given me very good performance on GMRS. It does need a good ground plane, though.

Ill definitely check those out. I did just place an order for two GMRS antennas, they are fairly cheap so I will just give them a try for now. I do have the 702-G and its pretty good for what I have experienced out in the mountains for the most part. Thank you for recommending the Diamond SG7900!! I have one in my list for possibilities. I'll have to order one asap. Thanks again!

[WRUE951]

The Midland MXTA26 is a must have... The Comet is a good antenna as well.   Out of the Box and no messing with tuning, the Midland wins.  

[WRQI583]

It isn't so much which is the best quality, although you do want a good quality in the end. It is more "What kind of terrain do you live in?"

Not all antennas are designed for the same purpose. If you live in a hilly terrain, you don't want an antenna that does better in a flat terrain.
I am not familiar with GMRS antennas, but in Ham Radio, Comet makes two antennas. The GP6 and the GP9. Both great antennas, however, one is made for those who live in a flat terrain and one is made for those in a hilly terrain. It all has to do with the take off angle of radiation. Some antennas direct your signal a bit higher (for those in a hilly terrain) and others go off straight away from the antenna (for those in a flat terrain). The same goes for vehicle use also. Usually you can research an antenna and it will give you that information.

[SteveShannon]

This is an excerpt from the U.S. Marine Corps Antenna Handbook:

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCRP 3-40.3C With Erratum z.pdf

Vegetated Areas

VHF and UHF communications through a dense forest over dis-

tances of more than a few kilometers can often be very difficult. In

many tropical regions, trees and underbrush absorb VHF and UHF

radio energy. In addition to the ordinary free space loss between

transmitting and receiving antennas, a radio wave passing through a

forest undergoes an additional loss that is measured in dBs per km.

This extra loss increases rapidly as the transmission frequency

increases.

Near the ground (i.e., antenna heights of less than 3 meters) vertical

polarization is preferred. However, if it is possible to elevate both

receiving and transmitting antennas as much as 10 to 20 meters,

horizontal polarization is preferable to vertical polarization. Con-

siderable reduction in total path loss results if either or both the

transmitting and receiving antennas can be placed above the tree

level through which communications must be made.

Increasing antenna gain may provide an improved signal strength

that exceeds the added antenna gain by reducing the number of

multipath reflections from trees along the propagation path. The

higher gain antenna exhibits a much narrower radiation pattern

which includes fewer trees in its beam. Generally, this effect is most

noticeable with antenna gains higher than 15 dB or azimuthal half-

power beam of less than 35°.

Communications through heavily forested areas over distances

greater than 10 kms may require a transmitter power of at least 10

watts and antenna gains of 10 dB or more, depending on antenna

height, terrain features, type of trees, moisture content, and numer-

ous other factors.  If communication is required over distances

exceeding 30 kms, it may be necessary to use high-angle iono-

spheric propagation in the 3 to 10 MHz frequency range (i.e., HF)

to obtain a reliable circuit.

[Lscott]

On 12/14/2025 at 4:15 PM, SteveShannon said:

This is an excerpt from the U.S. Marine Corps Antenna Handbook:

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCRP 3-40.3C With Erratum z.pdf

Vegetated Areas

VHF and UHF communications through a dense forest over dis-

tances of more than a few kilometers can often be very difficult. In

many tropical regions, trees and underbrush absorb VHF and UHF

radio energy. In addition to the ordinary free space loss between

transmitting and receiving antennas, a radio wave passing through a

forest undergoes an additional loss that is measured in dBs per km.

This extra loss increases rapidly as the transmission frequency

increases.

Near the ground (i.e., antenna heights of less than 3 meters) vertical

polarization is preferred. However, if it is possible to elevate both

receiving and transmitting antennas as much as 10 to 20 meters,

horizontal polarization is preferable to vertical polarization. Con-

siderable reduction in total path loss results if either or both the

transmitting and receiving antennas can be placed above the tree

level through which communications must be made.

Increasing antenna gain may provide an improved signal strength

that exceeds the added antenna gain by reducing the number of

multipath reflections from trees along the propagation path. The

higher gain antenna exhibits a much narrower radiation pattern

which includes fewer trees in its beam. Generally, this effect is most

noticeable with antenna gains higher than 15 dB or azimuthal half-

power beam of less than 35°.

Communications through heavily forested areas over distances

greater than 10 kms may require a transmitter power of at least 10

watts and antenna gains of 10 dB or more, depending on antenna

height, terrain features, type of trees, moisture content, and numer-

ous other factors.  If communication is required over distances

exceeding 30 kms, it may be necessary to use high-angle iono-

spheric propagation in the 3 to 10 MHz frequency range (i.e., HF)

to obtain a reliable circuit.

Then you look at the spec's, particularly the output power, for the old WWII "man-pack" radios. Most of the old WWII radios were still in active use during the Korean war too. The radios used in Vietnam were a bit better. Imagine what a modern VHF/UHF HT would have done for them back then. Scary when you understand people were literally betting their lives on this equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PRC-77_Portable_Transceiver

 

[WRUE951]

31 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Then you look at the spec's, particularly the output power, for the old WWII "man-pack" radios. Most of the old WWII radios were still in active use during the Korean war too. The radios used in Vietnam were a bit better. Imagine what a modern VHF/UHF HT would have done for them back then. Scary when you understand people were literally betting their lives on this equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PRC-77_Portable_Transceiver

 

And save lives.  Those things were like wearing bulletproof vest's..  

[Lscott]

44 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

And save lives.  Those things were like wearing bulletproof vest's..  

Anything with a huge whip antenna was the first target.

[Northcutt114]

3 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Anything with a huge whip antenna was the first target.

Shortly behind anything with a nozzle and a pressure regulator.

 

[Lscott]

45 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

Shortly behind anything with a nozzle and a pressure regulator.

 

My understanding is these guys got picked off really fast.

[WRYZ926]

I definitely do NOT miss having to carry the PRC-77!!!!!!

I will admit that the PRC-77 was lighter than having to carry the M60. Both made you an instant target.

I still recommend the Comet CA-712EFC or Comet CA-GMRS for a dedicate base antenna. And you won't go wrong with the Midland MXTA26 for a mobile GMRS antenna if you don't have any height restrictions to deal with.

[Northcutt114]

On 12/16/2025 at 11:54 AM, WRYZ926 said:

I will admit that the PRC-77 was lighter than having to carry the M60. Both made you an instant target.

Man-Pack > Crew Served 

[Northcutt114]

On 12/16/2025 at 11:46 AM, Lscott said:

My understanding is these guys got picked off really fast.

yuuuuuup. 

[WRYZ926]

1 hour ago, Northcutt114 said:

Man-Pack > Crew Served 

I would say both are equally targeted and I speak from personal experience in combat.